[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

Jeffrey Malone ieatlint at tehinterweb.com
Mon Mar 1 22:23:02 UTC 2010

I think that the order as you suggest them is backwards.

We elected the board to do our will -- to rubber stamp decisions of
the members through consensus.
Them selecting an ED and asking the membership for approval is not in
line with that.  Additionally, there is no benefit to this method of

Additionally, the specific incident I was referring to was NOT a
situation in which a person would have been selected pending the
approval of the membership.  The objections raised were due to that.

I have no problem with a committee being formed to select a person for
an officer position, and then have that person be put before the rest
of the group for approval.  But I see no reason why that committee
should be the board members.
As the power rests with the members, per our policy, I feel it should
be comprised of members.  If a member who is also on the board wishes
to participate, then great, that's their right as a member.

In my personal opinion, we elected board members to not make decisions
on behalf of the members, but to carry out the will of them.  That
will is not a blanket "we elected you, so do what you want" deal.  It
is, as I see it, a position where they act as little as possible to
keep the organisation running, and have membership consensus for
I don't want the board choosing our ED.  I just want them to rubber
stamp the membership's choice for ED.


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey, I'm not sure why the Board's action was a problem for you.  Could
> you explain it for my benefit, and perhaps the benefit of anyone else
> seeking clarity in this sinuous discussion?
> Directly from the Bylaws:
> "Section 2. Election. The officers of this corporation shall be elected
> annually by the Board of Directors, and each shall serve at the pleasure of
> the Board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any contract
> of employment.
> Section 3. Removal. Subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any
> contract of employment, any officer may be removed, with or without cause,
> by the Board of Directors or by an officer on whom such power of removal may
> be conferred by the Board of Directors."
> We elected the Board to do our will.  I think the last Board member we
> elected was Ani, yes?  One of the actions they take in their job to do our
> will is to elect the Executive Director.  It doesn't make sense to me that
> if they can remove an officer at any time, you feel they cannot also elect
> one without first consulting the membership.  We, the membership, can then
> consense on their choice and the process goes forward.  If consensus can't
> be reached after discussion and debate, the Board offers up another
> candidate.
> It's a feature, not a bug.
> Vlad
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
> To quote the "meeting minutes" from the last board meeting:
> 3. We seem to need to appoint an executive director for 2010.  Shannon
> and Andy wanted to reappoint Jake as our figurehead, but Ani didn't
> agree.  We proposed to appoint Mitch, so Andy sent Mitch an email
> asking.
> I feel this was written with an obvious bias.
> As an attendee, my memory of the events were this:
> One of the agenda items was to discuss the topic of the ED.
> It was stated that the term of the officers are for one year, and
> unlike the board members, there is no clause stating that they remain
> on until a replacement is selected.
> Either you (Shannon) or Andy, I don't recall which, suggested that the
> board simply re-appoint the former ED immediately.
> As an observer, I objected to appointing an officer without consensus.
> Ani also objected on these grounds.  A brief discussion ensued, in
> which Miloh agreed that the board shouldn't act without the consensus
> of the membership.  Andy and Shannon then withdrew the item without an
> actual attempted vote.
> The topic then continued as described in the notes.
> In my opinion, this attempted act stepped well beyond the authority
> that is prescribed by our policies.  I later heard arguments
> attempting to justify the attempt, quoting that the bylaws recognise
> the authority of the board to appoint officers -- not the membership.
> That obviously did not appease my concerns.
> So yes, I am wary of ANY sudden suggestion of new authority for the
> board that has not been widely stated before.
> Jeffrey
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Jeffrey Malone <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>
> wrote:
> Call it overreacting, paranoia, or whatever.  But a certain recent
> attempted act of the board leaves me with distinct fears of them
> acting beyond the authority that is prescribed to them.
> ?
> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list